If you had to take only one lens to a trip from your collection what would it be ?

[goodguy]

I'm torn between my 24-85 and my 70-200/2.8...I like both of those zooms.

Oh you got the 24-85mm too, nice, do you have the VR or none VR model ?

 

[GDHLEWIS]

Either my 35 1.8 or my 50 macro 2.8 then again Id never go on a trip with just one lens, might as well dig out my old trusted Fuji bridge camera then

 

[Derrel]

I'm torn between my 24-85 and my 70-200/2.8...I like both of those zooms.

Oh you got the 24-85mm too, nice, do you have the VR or none VR model ?

I have the older 24-85 AF-S G, the f/3.3~4.5 model.

 

[manicmike]

I use my 70-300 for 90 percent of what I shoot so probably that one. Or the 35 1.8.

 

[goodguy]

I'm torn between my 24-85 and my 70-200/2.8...I like both of those zooms.

Oh you got the 24-85mm too, nice, do you have the VR or none VR model ?

I have the older 24-85 AF-S G, the f/3.3~4.5 model.

Nice to see someone else appreciate this lens too, not a lot of people know how sharp and easy to work with this lens is.
The 24-70 2.8 lenses are probably sharper but they are much heavier and cost about X5 this lens used.

 

[ronlane]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned something like the Sigma 18-250mm or a Tamron 18-200mm. They are fast glass but could be useful in a wide variety of situations.

 

[MSnowy]

I'd take my D3x with 70-200 2.8 VR2

 

[Devinhullphoto]

I'd take my D3x with 70-200 2.8 VR2

If I had that it would be my choice!

 

[shadowlands]

My 28-70 f2.8 most likely.... if not... just my nifty fifty

 

[Murray Bloom]

My 17-55 f2.8 is the obvious choice. It covers most of what I shoot and makes very sharp images.

An alternative would be the 18-200 VR for its longer reach and close-up capability. It's reasonably small when retracted, light, and sharp enough. The downside - It distorts a bit more at the edges, but that's no biggie. Then there's that damned zoom creep. Overall, though, it's still the best walkaround lens for the money, IMO.

 

[shadowlands]

My 17-55 f2.8 is the obvious choice. It covers most of what I shoot and makes very sharp images.

An alternative would be the 18-200 VR for its longer reach and close-up capability. It's reasonably small when retracted, light, and sharp enough. The downside - It distorts a bit more at the edges, but that's no biggie. Then there's that damned zoom creep. Overall, though, it's still the best walkaround lens for the money, IMO.

Both excellent lenses!!!
Shoot, I made money with my former 18-200 VR. I sold landscapes taken from a moving plane over the sea-cliffs of Hawaii's Molokai.
I miss it at times.

 

[table1349]

If I could only take one lens.... I would cancel the trip.

 

[Marc.P]

I use a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 most of the time, but the lightweight Tamron 17-35 f2.8 should be fine as well.

 

[MK3Brent]

I'd take my all star team!
85mm f/2.8 PC-E

 

[TheJacksonCinco]

Out of what I currently own, I'd probably take the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It's not as wide as what I'd like but I like how it performs and the wide aperture.

If I could rent something (though I doubt I would), I wouldn't mind something like the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. I've been thinking about ditching the kit lens and replacing it with that (or, more likely, the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8). I shoot wide more often than not so that range would probably be more usable on my crop sensor camera.